Post on 10-Aug-2020
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 1 | P a g e
Course Instructions
NOTE: The following page contains a preview of the final exam. This final exam is identical to the final exam that you will take online after you purchase the course.
After you purchase the course online, you will be taken to a receipt
page online which will have the following link: Click Here to Take
Online Exam. You will then click on this link to take the final exam.
3 Easy Steps to Complete the Course:
1.) Read the Course PDF Below.
2.) Purchase the Course Online & Take the Final Exam – see note above
3.) Print Out Your Certificate
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 2 | P a g e
The Construction Industry
"Building Envelope Moon Shot"
FINAL EXAM
1. The construction industry is a annual industry and one of the largest parts of the US economy. a. $1 billion b. $500 million c. $1 Trillion d. $50 million
2. Some industry pundits and experts have suggested that the construction industry has inefficiency and waste of more than______. a. none b. 30% c. auto d. 5%
3. The building envelope “Moon Shot” idea is to design, construct and commission the project first in the computer before installing in the field. a. True b. False
4. As illustrated in NIST’s Net-Zero Energy Residential Test Facility (NZERTF), a net-zero energy home produces at least as much energy as it consumes over the course of a year. a. True b. False
5. Passive Houses, as described by the Passive House Institute allow for space heating and cooling related energy savings of up to ____ % compared with typical building stock and over 75% compared to average new builds. a. 20% b. 10% c. 90% d. 50%
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 3 | P a g e
6. The firm CyArk is utilizing a combination of laser scanning and aerial drones to document and preserve the world’s treasures, including: a. The National Mall in Washington DC b. Mount Rushmore c. The Temples in the Middle East and Greece d. All of the above
7. The structural steel industry was among the first to adopt 3D modeling tools throughout its supply chain and embraced the CIS/2 open standard initiative by: a. working with software vendors b. getting educating about the market c. promoting of the benefits of EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) d. All of the above
8. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a report in 2004 entitled A Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. This report stated that significant inefficiency and lost opportunity costs associated with interoperability problems was estimated to have an annual amount of: a. Not significant b. About a $100 million c. $15.8 billion d. $4 Trillion
9. In the completion of the Denver Art Museum, the process of utilizing BIM and the CIS/2 workflows realized the following benefits: a. Prevented 1,200 collisions of steel elements
b. Sped steel erection to the finish line three months early
c. Gave nearly $400,000 in project funding back to the owner
d. All of the above.
10. The “Moon Shot” concept has the following high profile examples: a. John F Kennedy’s speech to Congress on May 25, 1961
b. Vice President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot announced June 28, 2016
c. Google X
d. All of the above
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 4 | P a g e
Simulating a Complete Building Envelope through BIM: The
Construction Industry "Moon Shot"
By Stephen R Hagan FAIA
Course Description
Buildings are responsible for the largest share of energy use of all sectors (38 percent), have the
largest share of carbon-dioxide emissions after the power sector, and through building envelopes
have the largest share of impact on building energy and comfort.
How can building information modeling (BIM) not just represent but also simulate building
envelopes for air, water leakage, and optimization?
This course proposes that this could be our industry "moon shot" to achieve processes,
technologies, and organizational transformation to improve envelope performance.
21st Century Challenge
“Within this decade, we will have the capability (using computational tools, building information
modeling, and energy modeling and analysis tools) to model the envelope, test the model for
performance, constructability, deficiencies, moisture, air and water proof capability all before it is
constructed in the field.
The “Challenge”, however, is not just about technologies, but also about a whole new way of
approaching the envelope in the context of architectural design, practice management,
construction and facility operations. “Who owns the envelope?” is a critical question that will be
discussed in this course.
Learning Objectives:
1. Recognize what "green building" means as well as the global context of sustainable or green
buildings.
2. Evaluate building information modeling (BIM), integrated project delivery, and existing
technologies for green building design as well as current challenges in achieving effective
implementation of these technologies.
3. Recognize the role of building-envelope airtightness in sustainable building envelope design
and discover ways to achieve LEED points for an airtight building envelope
4. Review the roles of key industry organizations in support of the “moonshot” innovation
initiative.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 5 | P a g e
The Construction Industry
"Building Envelope Moon Shot" Modeling a complete building envelope
In the computer before constructing in the field
By Stephen R Hagan FAIA
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
This course provides a detailed analysis of the culture and processes of the design and
construction industry, new technologies that are providing game changing approaches
to solving problems, and a dramatic proposal (“moon shot”) for making the critical
component of all structures, the BUILDING ENVELOPE, more effective, better
performing, and constructed virtually first on the computer before being installed in the
field.
The topic of the building envelope and the need for a “moon shot” for the industry is
developed here in the context of the overall design and construction industry.
The US construction industry is an almost $1 trillion annually industry and one of the
largest components in the US economy. While new technologies such as building
information modeling (BIM), laser scanning, model checking, and clash detection have
gained some traction in helping stakeholders increase productivity, much inefficiency
and waste remains.
Some industry pundits and experts have suggested the value of the inefficiency and
waste at over 30%, or more than $300 million annually! Indeed a widely circulated
graphic by Stanford Professor Paul Teicholz illustrates how much construction lags
other industries, including manufacturing, in terms of making inroads in this productivity
shortfall (see Figure 1).
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 6 | P a g e
What is a “moon shot” idea that could help improve outcomes for clients, increase an
architect’s productivity and profitability, and contribute to solving this productivity crisis
in the design and construction industry? After the superstructure of a building, the next
logical component of a building that is 1) a major piece of architectural sculpture yet 2)
often presents owners, architects, constructors, and suppliers with headaches due to
leaks and component failures in the building envelope.
The moon shot idea, therefore, proposes that a critical and error-prone component of all
buildings, the Building Envelope, can be planned, designed, specified, simulated (both
for alternative designs and water/air infiltration and leaks) and constructed and
commissioned first in the computer before installing in the field.
To summarize the 21st Century “Moon Shot” Challenge:
Figure 1 Construction Productivity Lags Manufacturing, by Professor Paul Teicholz
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 7 | P a g e
“Within a decade, we will have the capability (using computational
tools, building information modeling, and energy modeling and
analysis tools) to model the envelope, test the model for
performance, construct-ability, deficiencies, moisture, and air and
water proof capability all before it is constructed in the field. “
The “Challenge”, however, is not just about technologies, but also
about a whole new way of approaching the envelope in the context
of architectural design, practice management, construction, and
facility operations. “Who owns the envelope?” is a critical question
that will be discussed in this section.
This course will take you on a journey through the following topics leading
up to a delineation of this “Moon Shot” challenge:
The Building Envelope: Why it Matters and Why Architects Should Care
a. Building Envelope through History
b. Evolution of Architectural Envelope Design
c. Buildings and Envelopes Impact on Energy and Global Warming
d. Sustainable Design, Architectural Practice and the Envelope
e. Current State of Practice in Envelope Construction and Commissioning
Emerging Innovative Technologies: New Opportunities and Challenges
a. BIM (Building Information Models and Modeling)
b. Laser Scanning and Aerial Drone Photo-metrics
c. Clash Detection Model Checking
d. Energy Analysis and Thermal and Moisture Detection
e. Sensors and Internet of Things (IoT)
f. Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR)
AISC: An Industry Role Model in Innovation, Integration and Interoperability
a. Moving from Analog to Digital
b. Why Interoperability?
c. AGC, GSA and AISC Industry commitment and strategy
d. AISC Case Studies and “Road to Productivity”
e. Impacts on people, products and projects Moving Forward
Building Envelope Moon Shot: Organizational |Technical | Cultural Change
a. What are “Moon Shots” Anyway? Why and How Can They Be Effective?
b. Technology Challenges and Opportunities
c. Organizational Challenges and Opportunities
d. Cultural | Behavioral Challenges and Opportunities
e. Vision and Roadmap for Better Practice and Building Envelope Outcomes
Conclusion and Path Forward
a. From JFK and the Moon to 21st Century and Global Warming
b. Not Just a Mandate but an Imperative
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 8 | P a g e
II. The Building Envelope:
Why it Matters to Architects, Industry and the World
The Building Envelope through History
Since the beginning of mankind and human settlement and the subsequent creation of
the built environment, the building envelope has been synonymous with the concept of
human shelter. Vernacular architecture is often the term use for this early form of
construction. Local, easily obtainable materials comprised the floors, walls, and roof of a
structure, some in fixed and static environments such as villages and others as transient
encampments during migratory passaging through hunting grounds and new human
places.
As characterized by Richard Rush in his book The Building Systems Integration
Handbook, a building is defined in terms of four primary systems:
Structure
Envelope
Mechanical
Interior
As Rush explains, based on this characterization: "The envelope has to respond both to
natural forces and human values. The natural forces include rain, snow, wind and sun. Human
concerns include safety, security, and task success. The envelope provides protection by
enclosure and by balancing internal and external environmental forces. To achieve protection it
allows for careful control of penetrations. A symbol of the envelope might be a large bubble that
would keep the weather out and the interior climate in."
John Straube states in his seminal writing entitled “Historical Development of the
Building Enclosure”: Building probably began with simple forms of construction being
used for shelter from the wind, sun and rain. Gradually, as the desire for better shelter
grew, suitable materials were identified and construction skills were developed.
Vernacular architecture throughout the world is usually characterized by the judicious
and advantageous use of readily available local materials and an experiential
understanding of climate and site [Fitch 1960]. These forms of building evolved over
generations and, since the requirements were relatively simple and change was usually
very slow, the design, the building materials and the construction techniques evolved at
a pace dictated by matching need and available resources.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 9 | P a g e
But as Straube notes, “as society flourished, construction materials and
techniques developed from reeds and mud into manufactured baked mud and
burnt clay brick [Sandstroem 1970]. For several thousand years, walls in Europe
and elsewhere were built of masonry, wood, or clay material.
“Because of their size or massiveness, these walls were exceptionally strong and
durable and provided a modicum of thermal protection through their natural heat
storage and thermal insulation capabilities. Vernacular adobe buildings of New
Mexico [Knowles 1974] and brick and concrete Roman buildings such as the
Baths of Trajan (www.roman-empire.net/tours/rome/baths-trajan.html) were built
to absorb, store, and release ambient heat and captured solar energy so that the
net energy flow over several days was balanced.
“Where the climate was colder and masonry not as readily available, houses of
logs or half-timber with clay infill or earth toppings were built for their greater
insulating properties.”
The Industrial Revolution brought dramatic change, rapid development and innovative
deployment of new materials, products and techniques. As Straube continues, “New
forms of energy generation and equipment facilitated space conditioning and extended
humankind's environment to include less hospitable climates. The building structure, its
form, assembly techniques and materials underwent radical change in the relatively
short period between the 19th century and the present time.
“Specialization and mass-production, the hallmarks of the Industrial Revolution, were
slowly introduced into the building industry. The superstructure, and to a much lesser
degree, the enclosure began to be considered separately as specialized components.
Many buildings evolved as a structural endo-skeleton with an enclosing skin. In the
West, the traditional massive wall systems gave way to skeletal structural systems,
often with non-load-bearing enclosures.
“The shift from log and plank buildings to balloon wood-frame construction system
(possibly invented by either Augustine Deodat Taylor in 1833 [Condit 1968] or George
Washington Snow in the 1830s [Randall 1972]) was slow.
“Balloon frame construction was extensively used for reconstruction after the Great Fire
of Chicago in 1871. In Europe, cast-iron structural frameworks with load-bearing infill
were being used in English mills and warehouses by the turn of the 19th century. In the
mid-1800s truly flexural frameworks of cast iron and, later, the much stronger and more
ductile wrought iron, first appeared in the form of train sheds in England.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 10 | P a g e
While they may have been atypical or temporary structures, the Palm House at Kew
Gardens (1845), and the Crystal Palace (1851) were the first examples of mass-
produced, pre-fabricated buildings with thin enclosures separate from the structure
[Fitch 1961].
While the historical perspective is important, most relevant to this course is how the
building envelope has involved in the 20th and 21st century. The key evolution from
earlier construction modes to today’s practice was the increasingly separate nature of
the building envelope from a building’s foundation, superstructure, and even mechanical
and heating and ventilation systems.
Also as sustainability has become a critical factor in the design of new building and
facilities, and climate change has re-focused attention from occupant comfort to overall
building performance, the building envelope has taken on a central role.
Evolution of Architectural Envelope Design
One of the most comprehensive and inclusive descriptions of current criteria, methods
and techniques, and industry best practices in the design of building envelopes is
included in the Whole Building Design Guide’s (WBDG) Building Envelope Design
Guide, authored by Chris Arnold FAIA, RIBA from Building Systems Development Inc.
(lasted updated 6/1/2009).
Arnold notes an important milestone in the evolution of the building envelope:
The big change in the concept of the wall—and the real beginning of today's
concept of the building envelope—occurred with the invention of the steel, (and
later, the reinforced concrete) frame in the nineteenth century. The exterior wall
could become a screen against the elements and no longer be needed to support
the floors and roof. However, for several decades steel frames were buried in
masonry walls, and buildings continued to be designed in gothic or renaissance
styles.
The modern architectural revolution beginning in the early 20th century changed
this and by mid-century the steel or concrete framed office building with its
lightweight metal and glass curtain wall had become the new world-wide
vernacular for larger commercial and institutional buildings.
When the wall became a nonstructural screen-in and no longer supported the
upper floors and roof, it lost the beneficial attributes of mass but gained in
providing performance options. Whole new industries arose that would develop
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 11 | P a g e
insulation and fireproofing materials, air and moisture barriers and interior and
exterior facings.
More recently the exterior wall has become a major subject of building science
studies, largely because of the wall's key role in managing heat gain, heat loss
and moisture penetration
The role of owners in establishing criteria and requirements for building envelopes is
critical. Owners write the contracts that project stakeholders must comply with. For
some owners their direction is comprehensive, holistic and broad. In other cases, the
owner has chosen to narrowly focus on certain building components.
As an example of the former approach, the new Air Tight Commercial Building Envelope
requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA) have promulgated a performance-based set of requirements,
modeled after standards already in place in Europe. Rather than stipulate a specific set
of propriety details and product requirements, the newly released standard simply states
the requirement that a project meet a measure of air tightness, and the project passes if
it complies with the standard by passing an air blower test during the testing and
acceptance or commissioning phase of construction.
As an example of the latter approach, the New York City Department of Design +
Construction includes the following mention of the building envelope in their Design
Consultant Guide Appendix (A-1 Design Criteria)
The entire building envelope shall be carefully detailed in order to provide
continuous insulation, eliminate thermal bridging, and prevent
condensation and trapped moisture within wall and roof assemblies.
Building and Envelope Impacts on Energy and Global Warming
As mentioned in the introduction, buildings have an enormous impact on the economy
and the environment. One measure of that impact is simply the size of the industry. The
metrics that detail this size are very clearly summarized in the October 2008 publication
Federal Research and Development Agenda for Net-Zero Energy, High-Performance
Green Buildings, by the National Science and Technology Council of the U.S. Office of
the President.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 12 | P a g e
For commercial buildings, residential buildings, and overall U.S. government assets
worldwide, the statistics are impressive, as shown in the publication’s summary tables:
Equally as impressive as the number of facilities in the U.S. and worldwide is the portion
of the world’s energy use that is consumed by buildings. “Buildings consume about one-
third of the world’s energy. In the United States, energy consumption is classified into
three sectors: transportation, buildings and industrial.”
Figure 2 Statistics on Characteristics of US Buildings (Source: Federal R&D Agenda for
Net-Zero Energy High Performance Green Buildings
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 13 | P a g e
Primary energy use is broken down as follows:
Buildings 40%
Industrial 32%
Transportation 28%
The report continues: “Energy consumption associated with buildings has a substantial
impact on the environment. Within the U.S., buildings account for 40% of total carbon
dioxide emissions, 12% of water consumption, 68% of electricity consumption, and 60%
of all nonindustrial waste…
“McKinsey & Company (2007), working with major industry players such as Shell Oil,
Pacific Gas & Electric, and DTE Energy, found that improving energy efficiency in
buildings and appliances is the least costly way to reduce a large quantity of carbon
emissions.”
The building envelope, the focus of this course, is among the most important
components to address the issue of energy consumption and global environment
impacts. And a key to improving project and building outcomes related to the envelope,
recommends the report, is a concept called Design Integration:
“Building systems, components and equipment too often are designed and
implemented based on independent, prescriptive criteria. Through an
integrated design approach, however, all components and sub systems
are considered together in an effort to optimize overall building
performance.
Indeed, case studies have shown building energy savings of 30% to 70%
for design solutions that integrate dynamic, operable, high-performance
“envelope components and systems—those for roofs, walls, windows and
doors—to manage thermal loads (Griffith et al. 2007). Designing for
effective daylighting, ventilation, and passive solar energy management,
for example, could yield energy savings approaching 40%, without
advances in individual technology efficiencies”
One of the key recommendations of Net-Zero Energy High Performance report involves
Integrating the life cycle of a building:
“Although new energy-efficient components and systems have significantly
improved building energy performance over the past 30 years, the life cycle
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 14 | P a g e
energy savings are often significantly less than projected. Performance
deficiencies pervade buildings.
The most comprehensive study of building deficiencies to date found an average
of 32 deficiencies per building in existing buildings and 67 in new buildings (Mills
et al. 2004). U.S. Department of Energy case studies of six high-performance
buildings indicate a gap between design intent and construction that results in
reduced energy performance (Torcellini et al. 2006).
Building energy efficiency is further compromised when materials, systems, and
components fail before the end of their expected service lives; producing and
installing replacement products more frequently adds to a building’s life cycle
carbon footprint and other environmental impacts.”
All of this research and findings builds the case for the focus and topic of this course: a
building, and specifically the envelope of a building, including its design detailing,
component composition, orientation on the site to wind, sun and terrain, and even the
service life and functional longevity of components, all could be modeled, analyzed and
scenarios developed in a computer before fabrication, delivery, installation and
commission on site. All of the deficiencies mentioned above, especially with new
technologies such as model checking capabilities, could be reduced or totally eliminated
due to this new “moon shot” process.
The following report builds on the previous R&D Focus Area of Design Integration with a
specific emphasis on the building envelope itself:
“The building envelope is critical for reducing building energy loads. It is the
starting point for energy-efficient buildings and the main determinant of the
amount of energy required to heat, cool, and ventilate. It can also significantly
influence lighting energy needs in areas that are accessible to sunlight.
Specifically it determines how airtight a building is, how much heat is transmitted
through thermal bridges (which breach insulant and allow heat to flow in or out),
and how much natural light and ventilation can be used (World Business Council
for sustainable Development 2007).
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 15 | P a g e
The report also declares that there are many potential research areas that can
dramatically reduce energy impacts and ultimately reach the goal of net-zero
consumption, including:
“Enhance the use of solar heat and light, energy storage, and natural
ventilation
Reduce the impact of moisture and air infiltration
Develop construction techniques that enable superior technology
integration and materials waste reduction, recycling, and reuse.”
But the “pièce de résistance” of the report that supports the primary assertion in this
course concludes the section entitled “Envelope Load Reduction”:
“Conventional construction practices waste enormous amounts of materials—
construction of a typical single-family home generates two to four tons of waste
(Donnelly 1995; see also Section 4 of the Report). Conventional construction is
also very hazard—about 400,000 injuries occur annually in the United States and
more than 1,200 workers lost their lives in 2004 (Meyer and Pegula 2006).
Research is needed to develop cost-effective approaches to great automation
and improved controls in the construction process to reduce waste; make great
user of natural and recycled content and bio based materials, reduce injuries,
cost and build time; achieve greater durability and longevity, and achieve
compatibility with emerging BIM-drive design, engineering, construction,
operation, and repurposing life cycle concepts.
The energy benefits of the new approaches will be greater realization of the
energy savings potential of integrated who-building design and the use of
advanced envelope technologies.”
Sustainable Design, Architectural Practice and the Envelope
We have demonstrated that buildings have an enormous impact on global energy usage
and the building envelope is one of the largest contributors to this consumption. How
have architects and the architectural profession addressed this enormous impact and
what opportunities and constraints remain?
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 16 | P a g e
Architects, the American Institute of Architects (AIA), and associated other
organizations have dramatically evolved the practice of architecture in the face of
growing awareness of the impacts of climate change and global warming.
The year 2004 marked the point, as noted by the AIA, when “The National Discussion
Begins:”
The American Institute of Architects’ first Roundtable on Sustainable
Design brought together representatives of nearly two dozen agencies
and organizations with a shared concern: sustainability in residential
design and community development. The 33 participants spoke from the
wide-ranging perspectives of professionals representing building-industry
groups; architects; and an array of environmental, planning, housing, and
governmental agencies and organizations.
By the end of the roundtable—held October 25-26 at the AIA National
Component offices in Washington, D.C.—attendees had found common
ground and had begun to forge a new network for meeting the common
challenges in pursuit of the oft-cited three central aspects of sustainability:
economy, ecology, and equity. As keynote speaker Karl Bren, principal of
Green Visions Consulting, told the group, “The nonprofit community was
created on the [social] equity side, and most businesses are created to
make a profit—the economy side. All of them need to put in the ecology
element as part of what they do.”
The ideas, consensus, and collaboration fostered by the October
roundtable, which focused on housing sustainability, are the first fruits of a
new two-year program managed by the AIA Center for Communities by
Design, in conjunction with several AIA knowledge communities, to
establish and document a broad understanding of diverse issues related
to sustainable communities. The next roundtable—to be held December
13 in Washington, D.C.—will focus on economic aspects of sustainability.
Future roundtables will focus on environmental, historic-preservation, and
other design and development issues relating to sustainable design.
Collectively, the six-roundtable series will serve to establish a leadership
network and develop a national agenda, culminating in a national, AIA-
sponsored symposium on sustainable design scheduled for fall 2006.
As several participants noted, the architecture profession—and the AIA in
particular—may be able to play a unique role in furthering a sustainable-
design agenda in both the public and private sectors. Because architects
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 17 | P a g e
represent, for many audiences, a “status” profession and because diverse
professional disciplines view the AIA as an honest broker, the Institute has
an opportunity to lend an independent, credible voice to this national
discussion.
“The AIA could be a really good bridge between the environmental
community and the development community,” said Walker Wells, program
director of Global Green USA’s R.E.S.C.U.E. (Resource Efficiency &
Sustainable Communities for the Urban Environment) program. The
Institute’s involvement with both the environmental and development sides
of the equation put it in a great position to encourage consensus on issues
related to sustainability and to convey that consensus to diverse
stakeholders, he said.
For architects, as 2004 AIA First Vice President Douglas L. Steidl, FAIA,
told the group, sustainability “not only has to do with our values; it has to
do with practicality.” On the values side, the Institute’s public policies
recognize the value of collaboration, responsibility for the quality of the
built environment, and responsibility to the natural environment—and,
thus, to the sustainability of that environment. On the practical side, as an
Urban Land Institute gathering this year emphasized, sustainable-design
practices hold the potential to reduce the costs of building and community
projects alike, Steidl said.
As AIA National began taking a leadership position, it also noted other entities that were
helping to establish definitions and codify standards and measurements of success
toward a broader goal. Those organizations included the U.S. Green Building Council
(USGBC), the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE), and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the AIA noted both “Common Ground and Common
Challenges:”
On a general level, these are values that roundtable attendees could
easily agree upon. The challenge is in developing the data-backed
information and unified messages that demonstrate and convey the true
costs of poor design (e.g., continued sprawl, excessive resource use, and
pollution) and the true benefits of sustainable design and green-building
practices.
Among the initial challenges is to agree upon a commonly understood
definition of “sustainability” and related terms. The need to develop a
common vocabulary of sustainable design—while avoiding reliance on
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 18 | P a g e
jargon and terms with negative connotations—was a recurrent theme of
the roundtable.
One of the leading efforts to both define and codify the “green building”
part of the equation has been the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC)
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM) Green
Building Rating System®. Now a decade old, LEED certification will soon
be extended from commercial buildings to homes (LEED-H). Also soon to
be released is the newest certification program, LEED-ND (Neighborhood
Development), which seeks to develop a national standard for
neighborhood design that integrates the principles of green building and
smart growth. The rating LEED-ND, which would certify and reward
development that is both smart and green, involves a partnership of the
USGBC, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the
Congress for the New Urbanism.
In addition, the Top Ten Green Projects competition, sponsored by the
AIA Committee on the Environment and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) ENERGY STAR® Program, has raised the profile of
green building and helped to demonstrate its benefits through recognition
of high-performance, energy-conscious and environmentally responsible
design by U.S. licensed architects.
Attempts to quantify and certify the broad area of sustainability, however,
take in much more than environmental sustainability—the range of green
design and building practices to minimize the impact of buildings on the
environment (e.g., energy and resource efficiency, optimizing and
minimizing material use, and place-based design in which the design and
construction relates to local and regional resources). Other parts of the
equation are economic sustainability (e.g., affordability, minimizing public-
service and infrastructure expenditures); and social sustainability (i.e.,
meeting the needs of a growing, changing, and diverse population of all
income levels). These components of sustainability, on a community level,
result in livability (how well a community promotes human health and well-
being, e.g., through walkability, green spaces, multiuse development,
transit options, and an overall sense of community).
The concept of sustainability for architects went beyond just buildings and included
neighborhoods, urban centers, and regional planning as well:
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 19 | P a g e
Moreover, although sustainable design may be implemented on a project-
by-project basis, it will occur within a regional marketplace with regional
issues and natural systems that must be addressed, said David Downey,
Assoc. AIA, managing director of the AIA Center for Communities by
Design. “I think we will always be challenged to make that link between
the individual project in the community and that regional perspective,”
whether in the course of building relationships with local elected officials or
in getting the word out about community design. “The regional nature of
sustainability can be used as an underlying concept for our discussion,”
Downey said.
Current State of Practice in Envelope Design Construction and
Commissioning
From 2004 to the present, we have seen an enormous transformation across both the
architectural profession and the construction industry stakeholders in terms of attention
to sustainability concepts and particularly the building envelope.
The industry organizations that have primarily driven this transformation include:
AIA
USGBC
American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE)
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS)
The National Institute of Standards of Technology (NIST)
U.S. laboratories including Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
Various Federal and State Government Agencies
International Trade and Environmental Organizations
The previous section detailed the formative efforts of the AIA. Since then, a treasure
trove of resources have been published and promulgated by the AIA for architects as
well as clients and other stakeholders:
AIA Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice
AIA Contract Documents Guide for Sustainable Projects
AIA Energy Modeling Practice Guide
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 20 | P a g e
Deep Energy Retrofits: An Emerging Opportunity-An Architects Guide to the
Energy Retrofit Market
50 to 50, An AIA Guide to 50 things Architects can to Achieve 50 Per Cent
Reduction in Fossil Fuel Consumption by 2030.
Among the resources and activities that USGBC has developed and partnered with
industry stakeholders, since its inception in 1993, includes the following:
Guide to LEED Certification
LEED Credit Library
LEED Online
Discover LEED
Credentials account
Education @USGBC
Resource Library
USGBC+
Directory to:
o Projects
o Organizations
o People
o Regions
Green Home Guide
Greenbuild International Conference and Expo
ASHRAE identifies itself as:
“ASHRAE advances the arts and sciences of heating, ventilation, air
conditioning and refrigeration to serve humanity and promote a
sustainable world. With more than 55,000 members from over 132
nations, ASHRAE is a diverse organization representing building system
design and industrial processes professionals around the world.”
While it is primarily focused on engineering as noted in the description above, it has
both standards and practice manuals and resources devoted to improving the overall
quality of high performing buildings and, in particular, the building envelope. ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2013 is the industry gold standard, and includes detailed discussion
about air tight building enclosures and overall building envelope design and detailing.
The NAS Federal Facilities Council (FFC) has extensive resources, including
publications, events, and expertise. One example in the arena of Sustainable Design
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 21 | P a g e
and Construction includes a focus on a Federal specification: “Unified Facilities Criteria
1-200-02, High Performance and Sustainable Building Requirements”
NIBS is a unique organization with a significant mission and enormous resources
related to high performing buildings and building envelopes:
The National Institute of Building Sciences is a non-profit, non-
governmental organization that successfully brings together
representatives of government, the professions, industry, labor and
consumer interests, and regulatory agencies to focus on the identification
and resolution of problems and potential problems that hamper the
construction of safe, affordable structures for housing, commerce and
industry throughout the United States. Authorized by the U.S. Congress,
the Institute provides an authoritative source and a unique opportunity for
free and candid discussion among private and public sectors within the
built environment. The Institute's mission to serve the public interest is
accomplished by supporting advances in building sciences and
technologies for the purpose of improving the performance of our nation's
buildings while reducing waste and conserving energy and resources.
NIBS achieves its mission and activities through a series of councils that include
Building Enclosure Council - National
Building Enclosure Technology & Environment Council
Sustainable Buildings Industry Council
High Performance Building Council
NIBS also published in 2012, it’s NIBS Guideline 3-2012 on the Building enclosure
Commissioning Process.
NIST as the nation’s central laboratory for standards development has developed a
project that provides ongoing research and outcomes for residential buildings, including
envelope design:
The Net-Zero Energy Residential Test Facility (NZERTF) is a unique laboratory
at the National Institute of Standards (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Md. A net-zero
energy home produces at least as much energy as it consumes over the course
of a year.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 22 | P a g e
The NZERTF is a laboratory doubling as a prototypical suburban home on the
NIST campus in Gaithersburg, Md. Typical in appearance to new suburban
single-family dwellings, the two-story, four-bedroom, three-bath house
incorporates energy-efficient construction and appliances, as well as energy-
generating technologies such as solar water heating and solar photovoltaic
systems.
On July 1, 2014, the NZERTF house completed a successful year-long
demonstration, generating more energy than the house and its virtual family of
four consumed over the entire 12-month span. Now, NIST researchers and their
collaborators are transitioning the house to accomplish its chief objective:
developing improved or new test methods and performance metrics for energy-
efficient building technologies and renewable-energy systems.
LBNL is one of the national research laboratories which has dedicated significant
resources to envelope research and data analysis. One of the seminal works published
is the Building Envelope Technology Roadmap 2020. In addition, LBNL’s research
teams continue to develop and evolve Software Tools for Building Envelopes including
EnergyPlus, a software program which includes new capabilities and linkages.
Figure 3 NIST Net-Zero Energy Residential Test
Facility
Figure 4 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory User Test Bed Facility (UTBF)
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 23 | P a g e
LBNL also developed a User Test Bed Facility (UTBF) for Integrated Building systems with unique capabilities for modeling and testing building envelop components and configurations.
As described on the DOE LBNL website:
DOE’s FLEXLAB at Berkeley Lab is the most flexible, comprehensive, and
advanced building efficiency simulator in the world, and it’s unleashing the
full potential of energy efficiency in buildings. FLEXLAB lets users test
energy-efficient building systems individually or as an integrated system,
under real-world conditions. FLEXLAB test beds can test HVAC, lighting,
windows, building envelope, control systems, and plug loads, in any
combination. Users can test alternatives, perform cost-benefit analyses,
and ensure a building will be as efficient as possible — before
construction or retrofitting even begins. FLEXLAB is the latest in Berkeley
Lab’s long line of game-changing energy efficiency innovations.
GSA and USACE have both recently introduced air tight commercial building envelope
standards into their criteria for capital construction programs.
In 2011 GSA published its new P-100 “Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings
Service:”
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) recently published its
2012 P100 general specifications policy entitled, “Facilities Standards for
the Public Buildings Service,” which now incorporates expanded air barrier
Figure 5 GSA P-100 Facilities Standards for
the Public Buildings Service
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 24 | P a g e
requirements. Specifically, whole building air barrier testing has been
included as part of the building program for the Public Buildings Service
(PBS). The requirement signals a bold new direction for GSA policy with
more focus on building enclosure standards and a broader commitment to
energy conservation.
Specific GSA policy states,” The whole building must not have an air
leakage rate of more than 0.4 cfm/ft2 (2.0L/s/m2) at a pressure differential
of 0.3 in w.g. (75 Pa). The test method used should be developed for each
specific project by the Testing Agency and General Contractor, and
approved by the Government (or representative).” (2012 Facilities
Standards for the Public Buildings Service – Section 3.14 pg. 83)
And the USACE, in 2012, published its “Air Leakage Test Protocol for Building
Envelopes.” As the document explains in its introduction:
On October 30, 2009 the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)
issued a directive in Engineering and Construction Bulletin (ECB) No.
2009-‐ 29 which required that all new buildings and those undergoing
major renovations shall have an air leakage rate that does not
exceed set values when tested in accordance with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Air Leakage Test Protocol for Building Envelopes (test
protocol). This test protocol was originally developed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers with assistance from the private industry
using ASTM E779 as a basis.
Both of these federal agencies were following the lead of European standards initiatives
with respect to building envelopes. International Perspective. The European entities
recognized in 2010 the significance of tightening up the building envelope:
The Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings was promulgated.
One of the basic principles of energy efficient buildings is perfectly airtight
envelope of buildings. Untightness leads to uncontrolled air exchange and
increased heat loss. Energy efficient buildings situated in areas with lots of
wind and in exposed locations could constitute up to 10 % of total heat
consumption.
And an initiative focused on residential construction called the Passive House concept
has been gaining strength world-wide. As described by the Passive House Institute, the
initiative was begun 25 years ago in the German city of Darmstadt by building physicist
Wolfgang Feist:
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 25 | P a g e
Passive House is a building standard that is truly energy efficient, comfortable and affordable at the same time.
Passive House is not a brand name, but a tried and true construction concept that can be applied by anyone, anywhere.
Yet, a Passive House is more than just a low-energy building:
Passive Houses allow for space heating and cooling related energy
savings of up to 90% compared with typical building stock and over
75% compared to average new builds. Passive Houses use less
than 1.5 l of oil or 1.5 m3 of gas to heat one square meter of living
space for a year – substantially less than common “low-energy”
buildings. Vast energy savings have been demonstrated in warm
climates where typical buildings also require active cooling.
Passive Houses make efficient use of the sun, internal heat
sources and heat recovery, rendering conventional heating systems
unnecessary throughout even the coldest of winters. During warmer
months, Passive Houses make use of passive cooling techniques
such as strategic shading to keep comfortably cool.
Passive Houses are praised for the high level of comfort they offer.
Internal surface temperatures vary little from indoor air
temperatures, even in the face of extreme outdoor temperatures.
Special windows and a building envelope consisting of a highly
insulated roof and floor slab as well as highly insulated exterior
walls keep the desired warmth in the house – or undesirable heat
out.
A ventilation system imperceptibly supplies constant fresh air,
making for superior air quality without unpleasant draughts. A
highly efficient heat recovery unit allows for the heat contained in
the exhaust air to be re-used.
The current state of practice of envelope design is both innovative but also fragmented
and a reflection of the general characteristics of the design and construction industry
itself.
But new and emerging technologies promise to build on these already significant
advances in technology and processes.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 26 | P a g e
III. Emerging Innovative Technologies: New Opportunities
and Challenges for the Building Envelope
The 20th and 21st century has seen the emergence of an incredible array of new
technologies. This course will look at some of the most significant innovations that are
affecting the design, fabrication, construction and commissioning of building envelopes:
a. BIM (Building Information Models and Modeling)
b. Laser Scanning and Aerial Drones
c. Clash Detection Model Checking
d. Energy Analysis and Thermal and Moisture Detection
e. Sensors and Internet of Things (IoT)
f. Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR)
BIM (Building Information Models and Modeling)
As a panel of architects and technologists took the stage in Las Vegas at the 2005 AIA
Convention, one voice stood out among the rest: that of Thom Mayne FAIA from the
firm Morphosis.
Speaking before a packed convention center of architects, Mayne challenged them all
saying:
You need to prepare yourself for a profession that you’re not going to
recognize a decade from now, that the next generation is going to occupy.
Our work begins with desire, initiated by us as architects not only in
response to our clients, but in response to something much more active
and engaged…We invent, imagine our work three dimensionally. Our
organizations and forms are interested only in what is possible with these
new tools. There exists a new medium, a continuity, a flow of thinking, a
design methodology which is more cohesive from the first generative idea,
through construction, coordinating millions of bits of discrete data.
Thom Mayne was asked by the panel moderator, “By what means can the architects in
this audience accelerate their understanding of this new technology and all its
implications for practice?” His response was:
We computerized our office just a little over ten years ago. It was a hunch
on my part. It was also about understanding survival. I had no clue what to
do. None. But my instinct was that this was more of a revolutionary thing
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 27 | P a g e
taking place, not an evolutionary thing. This wasn’t just a better machine
to do what we were already doing manually. It was something that would
completely and totally affect the way we think and conceive architecture,
also the way we produce it and documenting it for construction—the way
we think about it for construction. The most important thing is to
understand that it isn’t just about the nature of how we put together our
packages. It has to do with a complete rethinking of our work. It can come
from several different directions. It has to do with making an architecture,
which has a complexity, which has demands, formal demands that can
only be executed with these types of tools. For example, the Frank Gehry
model, which he’s done so successfully – it can also come from increasing
the performance requirement, like that car I showed.
One of the problems with our profession—a problem that has made it
somewhat weak— is that it’s so overly invested in incredibly antiquated
ideas and style and history and notions that should have been gone a
hundred years ago. We should concentrate on the reality of what
architecture is in a modern society, and how it performs in that society
environmentally, culturally, socially, and politically. That’s where the
discussion has to start. These tools let us align desires with demands.
I haven’t drawn a plan for five years. I go to schools now that are still
drawing plans and sections, and I have no idea what to talk about.
Because once you start getting used to these tools, it’s like flying a jet
plane and then going back and flying a prop. Even though you’re doing it
for some nostalgic reason it would be impossible to get used to flying from
Los Angeles to New York in ten hours. Once you get used to working
three-dimensionally, there’s no going back. It represents a new totality
But the most insightful statement made at this panel discussion and some would say the
entire convention that year, specifically responded to the panel moderator’s question to
Thom Mayne, “What one message should every practicing architect take home from this
session?” And Mayne’s response was a challenge to the entire architectural profession:
Survival. If you want to survive, you’re going to have to change.
If you don’t change, you’re going to perish. Simple as that.
It’s such a basic thing. You will not practice architecture if you’re not up to
speed with this. You will absolutely not practice architecture in ten years. I
have no doubt about it, no question. It’s changing very rapidly. My office
doesn’t resemble what it did fifteen years ago. It’s a completely different
office. Different staff, different skill sets, different time sequences, different
services. It’s going to put us back as builders, which is the absolute key. I
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 28 | P a g e
graduated in 1969. Since then architecture has been eviscerated. We’re
cake decorators, we’re stylists.
If you’re not dealing in the direct performance of a work and if you’re not
building it and taking responsibility for it, and standing behind your
product, you will not exist as a profession. We agree, yeah?
From a BIM perspective, that call to arms for architects 11 years ago stands as a
milestone. An enormous amount of progress has been made in the sophistication of
software, development of new tools for building analysis and model checking, and
cultural progress in firm practice and individual talent and achievement.
One of the most illustrative examples of the evolution of BIM with respect to building
envelopes is in the AIA Technology in Architectural Practice (TAP) Knowledge
Communities Annual BIM Awards from 2005 to 2015. In 2005, the first year the BIM
awards were held, the awards category for “Stellar Architecture” was won not by an
architect, but by an engineering firm: Arup.
The winning project, which the world saw on their TV screens during the Beijing
Olympics where Michael Phelps won 8 gold medals, was the Beijing Swim Centre.
That project included a unique skin consisting of high performance plastic in a
configuration that simulated the “bubbles” and physics by Kepler. But most importantly,
the project met the goal of the TAP BIM Awards program for the stellar architecture
category because it could not have been achieved except by BIM.
The next year, in 2006, another project was won in the stellar architecture category
again NOT by an architect, but this time by a constructor: Mortenson Construction. And
in that case, the Denver Art Museum again included BIM as a primary design,
construction, fabrication and installation technology and, again, the configuration could
not have been achieved except by BIM.
Over the twelve years of the AIA TAP BIM Awards program, the stellar architecture
category continued to provide intriguing case studies in the use of BIM and, in
particular, unique architectural solutions to the building envelope.
Laser Scanning and Aerial Drone Photo-metrics
The GSA began its nationally and internationally recognized 3D/4D Building Information
Modeling Program in 2003 and one of its first innovative initiatives was the application of
laser scanning technology to the building process.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 29 | P a g e
Under the professional development of a Stanford University student from its Center for
Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), Calvin Kam PhD AIA, case studies utilizing laser
scanning were developed for various GSA projects. Applications included scanning of
historical structures for building envelope renovation purposes such as the Philadelphia
Courthouse and the St Elizabeth Campus in Washington DC.
Partly because of the innovation that GSA promoted, laser scanning for buildings
received significant attention and generated new advancements in laser scanning
equipment, reality capture, conversion from scanned point clouds to building information
models and continued refinements in accuracy, efficiency and cost effectiveness.
In the past 13 years of technical progress, another technology has taken on an equally
innovative approach to measuring building envelopes: aerial drones. Currently used
both in pre-design analysis as well as during construction, the drones have proven to be
amazing tools for getting to places that humans have a hard time reaching, and to
provide a wide range of surveillance and measurement capabilities.
The firm CyArk is utilizing a combination of laser scanning and aerial drones to assess
damage and provide documentation for preserving the worlds treasures, including
Mount Rushmore, monuments on the National Mall in Washington DC, and Temples in
Greece and the Middle East.
Another project, called The Scanpyramid Project, was recently highlighted in a Popular
Mechanics October 29, 2015 feature article:
An unsolved archeological mystery from antiquity will soon come under the
scrutiny of advanced modern laser technology. An international team of
researchers from Egypt, France, Japan and Canada has united to form the
ScanPyramid project. With the blessing of the Egyptian Ministry of Antiques, the
team will embark on a one-year project at the end of 2016 to use a number of
different scanning and imaging techniques to create 3D maps of four ancient
Egyptian pyramids.
"We want to use these technologies to look through the stones and see if we can
find rooms and secret passages behind the walls and inside the pyramids,"
founder of the French arts heritage non-profit HIP, Mehdi Tayoubi, told
Motherboard.
ScanPyramid will employ multiple technologies to create their models, including
infrared thermal imaging, radiography, and scanners mounted to drones. To
capture the pyramids' internal structures, the researchers will use a novel
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 30 | P a g e
technique called muon tomography. Muons are subatomic particles similar to
electrons—though roughly 200 times bigger—that can penetrate pretty much any
physical barrier. Muon tomography has already been used by the Japanese KEK
particle physics research institute and Nagoya University to see inside volcanoes
and nuclear reactors in Japan.
How exactly the ancient Egyptian pyramids were constructed remains a mystery
to this day. In 2007, French architect Jean-Pierre Houdin developed a theory that
the Great Pyramid of Giza was partially constructed from the inside. Based on
eight years of research and a 3D computer model, he posited that the first 129
feet of the pyramid was built using external ramps, but the top was completed
using a ramp that spiraled around the interior.
Tayoubi told Motherboard that the ScanPyramid Project is designed to look for
clues that might resolve this 4,500-year-old architectural mystery as well as to
test the potential of modern imaging technologies. "When the Japanese team
comes to Egypt with their muon technology, they will meet with new challenges
that will require them to find answers to new questions."
Clash Detection and Model Checking
One of the first technologies that evolved along with building information modeling was
the ability to detect geometric clashes between various building elements during design
as well as construction.
This clash detection and verification of the integrity, completeness, and correctness of
BIMs has significant implications for our investigation into the technologies and
business processes supporting our “moon shot” goal.
Navisworks is a software product synonymous with clash detection:
The core of the Navisworks feature set was originally developed in 1995 at
the University of Cambridge, as part of a student thesis project. The intent
was to manage and review multiple, large 3D files which, at the time, was
very difficult on the hardware of the day.
In 1997, LightWork Design Ltd., a UK 3D graphics software company,
found the research project, licensed the software, and started marketing it
to the building industry. In 2000 the company NavisWorks Ltd became a
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 31 | P a g e
subsidiary of LightWork Design, eventually became a separate company
altogether, and developed the product further under the name JetStream.
Autodesk bought the company NavisWorks Ltd in 2007 for $25 million in
cash and released Jetstream v5. It then rebranded the JetStream software
as Navisworks, and released the next version in 2008 as Navisworks
2009.
Navisworks describes the general process of ensuring that various elements in three
dimensional space do not occupy the same place at the same time:
With all of this compelling functionality, Navisworks is quickly gaining
popularity across a wide spectrum of end users. While its conventional
audience has been the general contractor or construction manager to
coordinate construction, it is becoming a favorite tool for specialized
subcontractors such as HVAC duct fabricators, who need to ensure that
their prebuilt components will not conflict with others. Navisworks is also
gaining momentum in design firms, who are incorporating Navisworks for
their own ongoing independent coordination tasks during the design
process.
Why is this important for the design and construction of building envelopes? Perhaps
the best example comes from, again, one of the earliest winners of the AIA TAP BIM
Awards, the Denver Art Museum constructed by Mortenson Construction.
In this example, as explained by Derek Cunz, as Mortenson began detailing the
superstructure and envelope, when they conducted clash detection they discovered that
the structural design by the design architect and architect of record would have
penetrated the surface of sheer metal building envelope, high up on the structure. If the
error hadn’t been caught in early stages in the computer, significant cost over runs,
fabrication and steel erection conflicts would have resulted in significant cost and
schedule over runs.
Solibri is a software application that has become an increasingly powerful tool for model
checking, clash detection and verifying a model against a wide range of “constraints”.
GSA adopted Solibri as its model checking tool of choice, and amazing applications of
model checking have been developed in collaboration with Chuck Eastman at Georgia
Tech. Solibri could definitely be leveraged as a model for checking building envelopes.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 32 | P a g e
Energy Analysis and Thermal and Moisture Modeling
The power of digital design and automation is that once a building is modeled, various
analytical tools can be utilized to provide feedback to the design team on ways to
optimize overall design, specific components, and orientation and site constraints and
opportunities.
Penn State’s Computer Integrated Construction (CIC) department has developed many
guidelines for the use of BIM, including facility energy analysis. As the BIM Execution
Planning website describes this process:
The BIM Use of Facility Energy Analysis is a process in the facility design
phase which one or more building energy simulation programs use a
properly adjusted BIM model to conduct energy assessments for the
current building design. The core goal of this BIM use is to inspect building
energy standard compatibility and seek opportunities to optimize proposed
design to reduce structure's life-cycle costs.
But there are several detailed ramifications to this process:
This BIM Use can be further divided into two categories based on different
levels of modeling details and implementation phases: Building Energy
Analysis during Conceptual Design and Detailed Building Energy Analysis
in the late Design. A quick energy analysis by using a simple BIM model
during early design stage could help select best building orientations and
configurations to improve building load and energy consumption profiles.
Detailed BIM energy analysis is typically done in late design phase by
using more powerful energy simulation tools, most of which are currently
capable of behaving like an hourly building load and providing a system
and plant energy simulation with economic analysis based on building
location and local utility rates, and supporting BIM model files as inputs.
Before a BIM model is used for energy analysis, the responsible party
(mechanical engineers or energy analysts) should review the model and
make proper adjustments if the BIM model is not ready for simulation. The
reviewing work includes checking model integrity and ensuring all
parameters needed are not missed. Simulation tools also need to be
determined before energy analysis, if single simulation programs cannot
satisfy all purposes (e.g. not all simulation tools are able to deal with
renewable energy systems or on-site power generation, while others may
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 33 | P a g e
lack of economic analysis), more than one software should be used jointly
to accomplish energy analysis task.
Frequently, a reference building energy model also needs to be
established to check if the current building design reaches the targeted
energy performance goals set by national or local codes. A more
significant amount of work is required to build a reference model on the
basis of existing BIM model: building geometric parameters will remain the
same while exterior walls, windows, and roof materials are changed based
on the standard requirements as well as HVAC equipment and lighting
facilities, etc., regardless what are really used in the actual design. The
reference building BIM model will then be input to the simulation tools for
energy assessment and the results are compared with actual building BIM
model's prediction to examine whether the design agrees with the energy
code.
If the targeted energy performance is not achieved, a design revision
should be made and recorded into the initial BIM model. Energy analysis
to the new version of building BIM model will be performed repeatedly until
the energy goals are satisfied.
The tools available to leverage the model constructed using BIM are many, and
include, as noted and excerpted from a December 8, 2015 article by Michael
Kilkelly in Architect:
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2.2 and Energy Plus
These tools have been stalwarts for many years in energy analysis,
but they require detailed information input and usually significant
time to compute, making them difficult to justify the time to use for
many design and engineering
professionals.
Vabi Apps, by Vabi Software
This suite of software tools is notable for its affordability and ease of
use, works with Autodesk’s Revit and includes
o Thermal Comport Optimizer
o Daylight Ratio Evaluator
o Energy Assessor
Sefaira Architecture, by Sefaira
This software tool works with both Autodesk Revit and Trimble
SketchUp and works via a software plugin, an also includes a
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 34 | P a g e
performance dashboard. Kilkelly notes: “Sefaira’s Web app, which
uses the cloud to process and analyze models with the EnergyPlus
simulation engine, provides a faster and more in-depth analysis of
the building model while allowing for straightforward comparisons
between design options.”
Green Building Studio, by Autodesk
Kilkelly describes this tool as: Green Building Studio (GBS) is
available as a standalone cloud-based service or as part of Revit’s
add-on Energy Analysis tools. Using the DOE-2.2 analysis engine,
this service provides a very detailed analysis and, as a cloud
service, runs quickly on Autodesk’s servers.”
OpenStudio, by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Available both as a standalone application and SketchUp plug-in,
OpenStudio is an open-source software that provides a visual,
user-friendly interface for the EnergyPlus analysis engine—a
console-based program that reads and writes only text files.
The SketchUp plug-in generates building geometry formatted
specifically for input into EnergyPlus. After the geometry is created,
users can define material properties, systems, and zones in the
OpenStudio application. Once the model is fully attributed, they can
then run multiple simulations with the Parametric Analysis Tool
(PAT), test different configurations with a drag-and-drop editor, and
obtain life-cycle cost information.
Because OpenStudio is open source, it does lack the support and
documentation provided with commercial software. It also doesn’t
work well with existing SketchUp models. Rather, for best results,
design teams must model the building envelope in SketchUp using
specific OpenStudio rules and requirements. That said, the
resulting data from the analysis is extensive and the PAT provides
a quick and easy way to compare options.
IES Virtual Environment for Architects, by Integrated Environmental
Solutions
Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES) offers a range of energy
modeling tools based on the Apache simulation engine. IES Virtual
Environment (IESVE) for Architects is an architect-friendly version
of the developer’s base IESVE product, which is targeted to
engineers and energy-modeling professionals. Using a plug-in for
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 35 | P a g e
Revit, Sketch Up, or Vector works, architects can export their
models to the IESVE application for analysis and then simulate
water usage, daylighting, solar shading, energy use, and heating
and cooling demand. A simulation report conveys results through
charts and diagrams.
And an Outsourcing Option: BIM IQ Energy developed by Oldcastle
Building Envelope.
And beyond the tools outlined above that are relatively easy to use and are integrated
with popular BIM authoring tools, there is also a B.E.S.T. (Building Energy Software
Tools) Directory (at www.buildingenergysoftwaretools.com), formerly hosted by the US
Dept. of Energy, which includes more specialized tools and those used by energy
consultants.
But the impressive thing about that website above is the sheer number of building
software tools for the building envelope and for evaluation energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and sustainability in buildings: 410!!
Sensors and Internet of Things (IoT)
Since 2005 when the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) first developed a
specification and guide for sensors and sensor web enablement, the opportunity for
connecting components in the built environment to sensors, computers, the internet and
dashboards for monitory and analysis has grown enormously.
Combining the sensor technology with a new concept called the “internet of things (IoT)”
has made this opportunity the next “big thing”. The term “Internet of Things” was coined
by Kevin Ashton, executive director of an organization called the Auto-ID center in 1999.
In that same year, Neil Gershenfeld at MIT Media Laboratory wrote about a similar
concept in a book called “When Things Start to Think” and also helped found the Center
for Bit and Atoms at MIT in 2001.
Although it took until 2003-2004 for the term to make it into mainstream media, the
internet of things and sensors are now becoming a ubiquitous topic and certainly
something that has enormous implications for the design, construction and
commissioning of building envelopes.
For example, in 2014 Marco Casini of the University of Rome authored an article
entitled the “Internet of things for Energy Efficiency of Buildings”. Although the primary
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 36 | P a g e
focus of this paper is on mechanical, electrical and HVAC systems and monitoring
programs, the effect that the envelope has on building performance is so significant that
sensors and monitoring/controlling of the envelope is a major part of this solution.
The next step is to make the building envelopes dynamic and adaptive. The key to this
is to use sensing and “smart” building envelope components to adapt in a dynamic way
to shifting environment conditions as well as occupant activities and comfort levels.
The key to resilience and optimization of building envelopes in many diverse climates
and increasingly dynamic environmental conditions will rest on many factors, one of
which is Smart Building Sensors. A company called Rambus, for example, has
developed “Lensless Smart Sensor” technology that will create what it calls an
“information-rich blob” about the activities inside a building that might affect how a
building envelope needs to perform to optimize comfort and human activities inside.
According to Rambus:
A building becomes more than simply concrete, glass, and furnishings
when it is equipped with technology that can understand the movement,
presence, and patterns of its occupants.
Through the use of diffractive optics, LSS captures information about a
building’s occupants while fully preserving their privacy.
The presence of someone, the number of people, and general activity can
be passively detected, and used to trigger other systems and functions in
the building.
What is emerging are amazing new technologies that are not just about design and
constructing a building envelope, but also dynamically adjusting it after occupancy to
optimize the entire building’s performance for its intended purpose.
Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR)
Both the concepts of Virtual Reality (VR -- the computer-generated simulation of a
three-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real
or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment, such as a helmet with a
screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors) and Augmented Reality (AR -- a technology
that superimposes a computer-generated image on a user's view of the real world, thus
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 37 | P a g e
providing a composite view) are receiving an enormous amount of interest in the
industry media as well as in venture funding.
According to Peeter Nieler, as reported in AEC-business.com, there are 419 Virtual
Reality Startups in the Spring 2016, of which 149 are in the European Union. The
combination of progress 3D and BIM technology adoption along with the idea that virtual
buildings and environments are a natural first step in realization of the same structures
in the real world has propelled this explosive interest in investment and product
development. And the numbers above, according to Nieler, might well be a gross
underestimate, since in Spring 2016, approximately 118,000 Oculus Rift developer kits
(second generation) had already been shipped.
With increasing investment in these technologies and innovative product development
on the rise, architects and constructors are finding new applications for their clients and
their projects.
McCarthy Building Companies is one of the largest and oldest builders in the U.S.,
involved in design and constructing hospitals, laboratories and education facilities over
the last 150 years. McCarthy now uses virtual reality to improve its processes. The firm
began utilizing what is called a “cave” to fully immerse their design team, clients and
others in the design as it progresses. “By using VR, McCarthy offers clients the ability to
make changes virtually for free well before actual construction has begun, “according to
John Gaudiosi in Fortune, August 25, 2015 article. “Even the age-old use of
constructing scaled mock-up models of buildings is being replaced by VR.” And
according to McCarthy CIO Mike Oster, “The benefits of using VR have been great,
according to Oster. “When we started embracing VR in the design and building process,
we began seeing faster project approvals, increased positive client interactions and
higher client satisfaction,” says Oster.
Others have taken advantage of VR technology, built around an acoustic model, to
optimize concert halls. Cundall is an international consultancy who has combined the
visual and 3D geometry effects of BIM with a tool they call Cundall Virtual Acoustic
Reality, users go into a virtual world and still see the visual aspects to a building, but
they can also hear while in the space.
Both of these examples re-inforce the opportunity for modeling a building envelope in a
computer first, allowing clients and design/construction teams to become immersive and
participate in design and product and performance decisions before the envelope is
constructed.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 38 | P a g e
IV. AISC: An Industry Role Model in Innovation, Integration
and Interoperability
Moving from Analog to Digital
Having laid out 1) the case for why the building envelope matters and 2) how emerging
innovative technologies are now presenting us with enormous potential for
improvements in our planning, design and construction process, this course will now
explore an in-depth case study of how technology has dramatically improved project
outcomes and client satisfaction.
The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) was created in 1921 and in 1923
published the first edition of its iconic standard for steel design, called the Specification
for Structure Steel buildings. For the purposes of this course, we jump to 1998 when
AISC continued its industry leadership role by establishing itself in the forefront of
interoperability and data standards.
From the beginning this initiative was an international one. AISC drove forward with
both the electronic data interchange (EDI) approach and adopted CIMSteel Integration
Standard (CIS/2) as an open standard. But the effort began when the University of
Leeds and The Steel Construction Institute in Great Britain as CIS/2 emerged and
became adopted by AISC in the U.S. As Chris Moor writes, “AISC adopted CIS/2 in
1998 and invested heavily in making it “the” data exchange standard for structural steel.
The structural steel industry was among the first to adopt 3D modeling tools throughout
its supply chain and by working with software vendors, educating the market and
promoting the benefits of EDI, CIS/2 was embraced. It became a major success,
improving productivity and positioning the steel industry at the forefront of
interoperability and what was later to be called BIM.”
It is important to note what CIS/2 is focused on: the data exchange standard within the
structural steel industry, including integrated processes from design and analysis to
detailing, fabrication, and ultimately field installation and erection. Although it was
critical to start within a specific industry to have a success, it is important to note that
other systems and materials connected to structural steel in a building (such as
concrete, miscellaneous metal supports, pre-cast panels, and others) were not
considered in the schema.
The primary point to be made is that AISC through the development, marketing and
adoption of the CIS/2 standard was driving the industry from being an analog focused
industry to digital and totally automated. But as noted above, as technology and work
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 39 | P a g e
processes evolved, “CIS/2 has reached a plateau, with technological advances and end
user requirements testing its limits, and software providers adopting other (proprietary)
ways to share data. In fact, proprietary, point-to-point data exchanges through
application program interfaces (APIs) are becoming the norm in the structural steel
industry, even while CIS/2 and other open standards remain in use. End users now find
themselves with a diverse selection of exceptionally high-quality data exchanges to
choose from,” according to Moor.
Why Interoperability?
The diverse selection mentioned above has evolved for a reason: “interoperability is
market driven. Software vendors want a return on programming investment. Yet, open
standards are too slow to evolve, are governed by the lowest common denominator, are
expensive and time consuming to implement and none can currently exchange all the
data users needs or wants. By matching the market need with an array of possible
solutions, the software company is able to respond faster and more effectively to their
clients.”
The question raised by open standards (i.e. interoperability) is whether a market-driven
approach will ultimately serve the stakeholders and industry partners well? As Moor
explains, “What chance do open standards have in this kind of environment? Does it
matter how data is exchanged, as long as it’s exchanged? As BIM adoption spreads,
other design and construction industry segments find themselves searching for effective
data exchange solutions. Interoperability has become the Holy Grail as project teams
strive for multi-discipline models and the ability to seamlessly exchange data between
architects, engineers, contractors and a multitude of subcontractors.
To solve this issue, a general industry migration toward the buildingSMART alliance’s™
Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) is already under way. IFC is an industry-wide open
standard and the structural steel industry, with its assortment of data exchange
solutions, finds itself needing to choose a direction.”
This thorny issue is summarized with Moor’s own professional stance, “The bottom line
is that open standards will never be able to exchange all the data that two programs
could exchange, or indeed that a client wants. In essence, open standards don’t support
innovation or creativity. Perhaps it’s a paradox to then state that accepting this fact is
actually key to understanding that open standards do matter. Software vendors,
perhaps despite their actions, will always prefer a single standard to write to, so long as
it can help them meet their needs and satisfy market requirements. A single standard
means software vendors can reduce programming effort and reduce maintenance
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 40 | P a g e
requirements by not having to support multiple proprietary exchanges. As long as the
limitations are known, then solutions can be found. In the end, the formula for
marketplace success is simple: Open Standard + Proprietary Enhancements = State of
the Art.”
If the discussion about interoperability outlined above ultimately becomes increasingly
technical and “in the weeds”, the industry reality of what AISC achieved is much more
understandable and the story is a compelling one.
AISC began their efforts in 1998 and were still in the nascent phase of transforming
their segment of the industry when a new study by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) was published in 2004 that clearly highlighted the critical need
for what AISC was already doing.
The report was entitled A Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S.
Capital Facilities Industry. The report’s vision of a futuristic scenario for the industry was
used to compare with current practice by taking “the value of capital facilities set in
place using (then) current business practices and compared those costs with a
"hypothetical and counterfactual scenario in which electronic data exchange,
management, and access are fluid and seamless.”
“The implication illustrated in the report that "information need only be entered into
electronic systems once, and then it is available to all stakeholders instantaneously
through information technology networks on an as-needed basis". Even so, the report
suggests that even an incremental improvement has potential for massive savings,
albeit primarily for owners and operators.
The bottom line of the report stated that “$15.8 billion in annual interoperability costs
were quantified for the capital facilities industry in 2002. Of these costs, two-thirds are
borne by owners and operators, which incur most of these costs during ongoing facility
operation and maintenance (O&M). In addition to the costs quantified, respondents
indicated that there are additional significant inefficiency and lost opportunity costs
associated with interoperability problems that were beyond the scope of our analysis.
Thus, the $15.8 billion cost estimate developed in this study is likely to be a
conservative figure.”
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 41 | P a g e
AGC, GSA and AISC Industry Commitment and Strategy
The industry as a whole wastes $15.8 billion annually, and the steel construction
industry definitely contributes to a portion of that waste, the AISC and its stakeholders
concluded.
What prompted AISC to decide to develop a digital/interoperable standard for the steel
industry? Partly it was to make its members more productive and competitive. “How
does CIS/2 make structural steel more competitive?
As AISC has stated on its website and publications, “CIS/2 adds efficiencies into the
steel supply chain that result in a lower installed cost of structural steel. CIS/2 is also a
natural tool to help modelers better coordinate construction activities and avoid costly
field rework, resulting in fewer delays and an accelerated schedule.
As the rest of the A/E/C community become aware of the advantages and possibilities
of BIM, the structural steel industry is already regarded as a leader in the field of
interoperability. To maintain that leadership AISC has recently announced a new
strategy for interoperability that evolves the use of CIS/2 and moves towards adoption
of IFC. “
The standards effort was begun in 1998 and by 2002 a second release of the CIMSteel
Integration Standards (CIS/2) was published and endorsed by “the American Institute of
Steel Construction as the standard for the electronic exchange of structural steel project
information for the North American steel design and construction industry.”
AISC engaged Professor Chuck Eastman who is a professor in the Colleges of
Architecture and Computer Science at Georgia Institute of Technology of Georgia Tech.
Eastman is a specialist in the areas of Building information modeling, solid and
parametric modeling, engineering databases, and product models and interoperability.
Eastman is also the director of the Georgia Tech Digital Building Lab (DBL)
AISC committed funding from its organization’s resources and membership (estimated
to be about $2 million) to develop the CIS/2 standard. But in addition to making their
members more productive and processes more efficient, AISC had another reason for
this investment: concrete. In fact, its intention was to make steel more competitive than
concrete on as many projects as possible. So not only necessity but also competitive
advantage was the mother of invention.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 42 | P a g e
That was 2002, and by 2003 other industry stakeholders were also discovering the
potential of BIM and interoperability of diverse software tools to increase productivity
and improve client/owner/project quality, schedule and outcomes.
In February of 2003, the Association of General Contractors (AGC) published their first
edition of “The Contractors’ Guide to BIM.” The forward stated AGC’s its vision for the
future in the document’s forward: “The future of the design and construction industry is
going to be driven by the use of technology. The best example emerging today is the
use of three-dimensional, intelligent design information, commonly referred to as
Building Information Modeling (BIM). BIM is expected to drive the construction industry
towards a “Model Based” process and gradually move the industry away from a “2D
Based” process. This “Model Based” process where buildings will be built virtually
before they get built out in the field is also referred to as Virtual Design and Construction
(VDC). This guide is for contractors who recognize this future is coming and are looking
for a way to start preparing themselves so that when the future arrives, they will be
ready. This guide is intended to help contractors understand how to get started.”
Also in 2003, the US General Services Administration (GSA) created “the mandate
heard round the world. In its 2003 publication “Facilities Standards for the Public
Buildings Service” (the document known as the 2003 edition of P-100), included a
paragraph that stated: “GSA has set a goal to require interoperable Building Information
Models (BIM) on FY06 projects in support of improving design quality and construction
delivery.” The GSA 3D/4D BIM team began in earnest to bring the “goal” to reality.
Three paths were pursued, all ultimately contributing to the BIM program’s success.
These paths were technology, business, and social dimensions all needed to be
pursued to achieve success.
On May 8th and 9th 2006 the AIA/AGC Construction Industry Summit took place in
Washington DC to continue the industry transformation discussion. And in July 2006,
AIA, AGC and the Construction Users Roundtable (CURT) formed a collaborative
working group to transform the design and construction industry.
By October of 2010, the AGC had established a parallel entity focused on technology
(called the BIM Forum) and gathered its first event in Atlanta on October 14-15 with the
purpose of, as reported by Jeff Yoders on October 1, 2010, “The meeting will focus on
whether real-world evidence substantiates the claims that BIM leads to higher
performance in design, construction, operation and maintenance. Presentation topics at
the event included:
Does BIM actually lead to higher performing Buildings?
Can the Evidence Based Design process be applied to BIM?
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 43 | P a g e
How do building owners evaluate BIM practitioners and make decisions about
using BIM?
What post-occupancy evidence exists that demonstrates that BIM buildings
perform as projected?
AISC Case Studies and “Road to Productivity”
By 2010 major industry players such as AGC, AIA, GSA and AISC were all organizing
efforts to bring the promise of BIM to reality, encapsulated by the publications and
initiatives already mentioned:
AGC Contractor’s Guide to BIM
AGC/AIA Industry Summit
AIA/AGC/CURT Collaborative Working Group.
From 1998 until today, AISC continues to provide amazing innovation and leadership,
as shown by metrics and projects achieved. For 3-D modeling and interoperability, what
was AISC’s “Road to Productivity?”
The story begins with the status quo of the steel industry in the 1980s. In terms of new
technologies and improved processes, steel transformed its basic metric of creating
steel at 12 man-hours/ton to (in 2005) .5 man-hours/ton. Along with that key metrics
were additional transformations:
1/3 Energy
40% higher strength
37% reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
96.4% recycled content
The detailed processes involved in design to fabrication to erection and finishing of steel
are significant steps along the way, as illustrated in the following diagram:
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 44 | P a g e
But the analog (non-digital and non-computerized) nature of practice at the time was
hugely wasteful. Information, even if created by computerized tools, was still printed,
sent to another firm (often by mail or courier), opened by another human, and data
would be re-entered as many as 10 to 15 times in the complete workflow process.
The waste, as illustrated below, was at the beginning in structural design, then 3D
modeling and detailing, then materials orders and scheduling, and finally in fabrication.
Errors and inconsistences internal to the structural design process, as well as external
to other components of a building (substructure, envelope, mechanical and electrical
elements, etc.) would often not be uncovered until the steel material was on site, being
erected, and suddenly in conflict. The resulting conflicts necessitated costly re-work
and scheduling delays.
Figure 6 Detailed Process in Steel Design to Fabrication to
Erection and Finishing (Source: AISC)
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 45 | P a g e
The goal was to provide direct digital exchange, a flow of data seamlessly without
human intervention or separate silos of data and fragmented flow of information and
data. And all of this needed to be from various software tools and suites of technology.
And the need to flow from initial engineering analysis through to detailing at the
fabricator was a necessity.
CIS/2 provided a structural steel product model upon which data and workflows
interacted seamlessly. The ability to retain the integration of data all the way through to
fabrication by digital CNC machines, and then utilizing a 3D-model for erection on site,
was the linchpin to reducing errors and increasing productivity.
Figure 7 Illustration of analog process in steel fabrication and
depiction of waste (AISC)
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 46 | P a g e
Project after project, where the full integration of data and workflow was implemented,
significant quality control and savings occurred. On the Baptist West Hospital (350,000
SF) in Knoxville TN, fully 7 weeks were saved on the project. Whereas the traditional
Figure 8 AISC Steel Process Depicting Digital Transfers and Interoperability (AISC)
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 47 | P a g e
schedule involved 18 weeks and mostly end to end scheduling of activities, the actual
schedule for steel from design through completion was down to 11 weeks because
many activities were able to be completed in parallel.
Project after project had significant gains:
Casino of the Sun, Tucson AZ saved 425 tons of steel over traditional methods
Glenn Oaks Schools in Queens NY saved 3500 tons of steel, as well as
significantly reduced detailing errors, review time for shop drawings, and
significant schedule reduction.
Mt Tacoma High School (Tacoma WA) saved 3 months in schedule, had online
13 RFIs (requests for information) on 3,035 assemblies, and only 4 of 15,256
bolts were not aligned when it was finally erected.
Lansing (MI) community college save $2.35/sf or over 8% of the steel package
cost.
General Motors in their new automotive plant in Flint MI for manufacturing V6 engines
took the CIS/2 process to a new level of industry-wide integration with a 442,000 sf
factor saving 24 weeks in project schedule and over $5.5 million. In the process, they
Figure 9 Schedule Improvement with AISC CIS/2 Standard Case Study: Baptist
West project.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 48 | P a g e
detected 3,000 clashes between steel and other building elements, in the computer and
corrected before they reached the field.
As illustrated below, the key to these dramatic improvements in project outcomes was
going beyond just steel, but utilizing the BIM and integration processes for electrical,
HVAC, piping, architectural, civil and layout/process all the way along the facility
lifecycle.
The CIS/2 process is not confined to schools, churches and projects such as essentially
a big warehouse enclosing the automotive assembly line (the GM Virtual Plant). In 2006
Mortenson Construction completed the Denver Art Museum utilizing the CIS/2 process
and the benefits of BIM utilizing the CIS/2 workflows were significant:
Prevented 1,200 collisions of steel elements
Sped steel erection to the finish line three months early
Gave nearly $400,000 in project funding back to the owner
Brought in on time and under budget, with no claims expected.
For GSA who had been an early proponent of BIM, two projects (both by the
architecture firm Morphosis) utilizing CIS/2 realized some of the promise theorized in
2003:
Figure 10 Interoperability Case Study GM Virtual Plant, Flint MI
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 49 | P a g e
The Wayne L Morse U.S. Courthouse in Eugene OR because of CIS/2 and
contractor diligence was deemed the “fastest GSA project ever, with change
orders less than 3%” by Pat Brunner, the GSA Contracting Officer.
On the Federal Office Building in San Francisco, CA, the steel fabricated shared
his model with the curtain wall contractor, resulting in increased integration and
fewer missed opportunities and errors.
Projects have illustrated how the steel industry and the project stakeholders are
applying CIS/2 principles to many more disciplines, presaging the “moon shot” topic of
our course. In the case of Erie on the Park in Chicago, a 27-story residential tower, the
project was completely constructed in structural steel, including the envelope cladding
system. The non-rectilinear geometry of the plan, and the super-braces on the exterior
of the building, as well as the interior, made this a good case to adopt the CIS/2
integration and interoperability process. Xsteel was used to model the steelwork, as well
as the painted steel cladding sections that covered the columns and spandrel.
Impacts on people, products and projects Moving Forward
Was the goal achieved that AISC intended? Did a new interoperability standard for
steel make AISC’s constituent members more productive, profitable and their projects
more reliable and higher quality?
We fast forward from 2003 and 2010 to 2016 and the use of CIS/2 and integrated
project delivery methodologies. We highlighted Mortenson Construction and their path-
breaking efforts on the Denver Art Museum. At the 2016 Stanford Center for Integrated
Facilities Engineering (CIFE) summer program, Derek Cunz, Senior Vice President and
General Manager of Mortenson’s National Projects Group told the story about their most
recent success: The US Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, Minn., “Building the US Bank
Stadium was not business as usual. The project presented a number of unique
challenges such as an extremely tight 32 month planned schedule to meet our
customers’ business goals, record cold winters, and unique project features. We will
briefly address some of the strategies and innovative approach our team took to
achieve success by delivering this multi-purpose stadium, 6-weeks early with zero
punch list items on opening day.”
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 50 | P a g e
V. Building Envelope Moon Shot
As we developed this course, we laid out the rationale for this moonshot with the
following key areas of investigation:
The Building Envelope and why it matters
New Emerging Innovative Technologies that are like a tsunami cascading over
the design and construction industry
How AISC took an analog industry and with focus and courage drove innovation
throughout the supply chain of steel
Bringing all of these areas into focus comprises this core section and the essence of the
course. To re-iterate (and following the inspiration of John F Kennedy’s speech on going
to the moon):
“Within a decade, we will have the capability (using computational tools,
building information modeling, and energy modeling and analysis tools) to
model the envelope test the model for performance, construct-ability,
deficiencies, moisture, and air and water proof capability all before it is
constructed in the field.
This will include:
Rapidly iterating design, product, and construction alternatives
Virtually engaging and ensuring collaboration among architects,
specifiers, building product manufacturers, constructors (prime and
sub), and trades in collaboration
The “Challenge”, however, is not just about technologies, but also about
a whole new way of approaching the envelope in the context of
architectural design, practice management, construction, and facility
operations. “Who owns the envelope?” is a critical question that will be
addressed as well
This portion of the course ties the previous threads together and comprises a vision and
manifesto of what might be possible. You are encouraged to be analytical and critical as
we work through the concepts of the “moon shot.”
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 51 | P a g e
The gauntlet has been thrown by Derek Cunz of Mortenson to support our “moon shot”
concept:
“We modelled everything,” he said about their most recent US Bank Stadium
project in Minneapolis.
And the resulting project performance metrics proved the value of that approach to
essentially do what we are proposing: model everything in the computer before building
in the real world.
Success stories have come from the leadership role AISC displayed and also from all of
the industry stakeholders played in believing in the AISC vision and driving that
innovation through their projects and across all of their project teams and internal firm
philosophies and standards.
What are “Moon Shots” Anyway? Why and How Can They Be
Effective?
If you search on Google for the term moon shot you come up with the following: “A
moonshot, in a technology context, is an ambitious, exploratory and ground-breaking
project undertaken without any expectation of near-term profitability or benefit and also,
perhaps, without a full investigation of potential risks and benefits.
Google has adopted the term moonshot for its most innovative projects, many of which
come out of the Google X, the company's semi-secret lab. Google moonshots include
Google Glass, Project Loon (a balloon-based Internet service project), the driverless
car, augmented reality glasses, a neural network, robots for the manufacturing industry
and Project Calico, a life extension project.
Here's Google's definition of a moonshot: A project or proposal that:
Addresses a huge problem
Proposes a radical solution
Uses breakthrough technology
And google illustrates their “big idea” approach in their website at:
https://www.solveforx.com and this is their description of the mission: “X is a moonshot
factory where uncomfortably ambitious, world-changing new ideas such as self-driving
cars, balloon-powered internet, and smart contact lenses are developed and taken out
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 52 | P a g e
into the world. We thrive on pursuing seemingly impossible challenges and are inspired
to make a positive impact on people’s lives.”
The term "moonshot" derives from the Apollo 11 spaceflight project, which landed the
first human on the moon in 1969. "Moonshot" may also reference the earlier phrase
"shoot for the moon" meaning aim for a lofty target.
(http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/moonshot)
It is enlightening to go back to May 25, 1961 and remember John F Kennedy’s Moon
Shot Speech. This NASA-provided transcript shows the text of Kennedy's speech and
what it called for, in 1961, to put Americans in space and on the moon before the
decade ended. Just over eight years after the speech, on July 20, 1969, NASA's Apollo
11 mission would land the first humans on the moon.
Here's an excerpt of Kennedy's speech before a joint session of Congress (see entire
speech in the Bibliography/Notes section):
I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country
as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter
carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over
many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no
sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative
position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear
the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today
and this year.
This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and
technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their
diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly
spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which
have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It
means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material
or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key
personnel.
In more contemporary vein, on June 28, 2016, Vice President Joseph Biden
convened his first Cancer Moonshot Summit to take President Obama’s State of
the Union message and begin implementing: “a new national effort to end cancer
as we know it. Here’s the ultimate goal: To make a decade worth of advances in
cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, in five years. Getting it done isn't
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 53 | P a g e
just going to take the best and brightest across the medical, research, and data
communities -- but millions of Americans owning a stake of it.”
The “real” moonshot, the Google X approach, and Vice-President Biden’s Cancer
Moonshot all have achieved goals or are well underway.
So why not a Building Envelope Moon Shot that creates a “big audacious goal”
and sets in motion technology, organization, and industry cultural transformations
to bring it to fruition?
Technology Challenges and Opportunities
Although technological advances are numerous and accelerating, the fact is that
the fundamental challenges remain of lack of focus and wide-spread
fragmentation of man-power and efforts.
Previously we noted that there are over 410 building software tools all developed
and continually being updated, and significant resources being deployed in
marketing and promoting them for evaluating energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and sustainability in buildings.
Here are the key questions to ask:
What if all of those tools talked to each other?
What if these 410 tools picked up data and information where others left
off, and continued to build a robust body of knowledge and data in an
accessible, interactive and interoperable Building Envelope Data and
Geometry Repository rather than silos of disperse and disparate
information?
What if the data entered at the beginning of a project flowed throughout
the life-cycle of a project to construction, commissioning, occupancy and
long term facility operations and management?
How can new and emerging innovations make use of this
A critical part of realizing this Building Envelope Moon Shot would be to test and
adopt initiatives already underway that focus on integration and interoperability.
These efforts include GSA’s CFR (Central Facility Repository) and the work of
Kimon Onuma for U.S. Veterans Administration (VA), Department of Defense
(DoD), Defense Health Administration (DHA) for FED iFM, and iFM (integrated
facility management).
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 54 | P a g e
If all of the data created by various stakeholders on a project is entered digitally
into a single repository, there is a good chance that the data then can be
indexed, categorized, searched and ultimately utilized across the project and
building lifecycle. The same holds true for all the data generated for the building
envelope.
The idea of a digital and computable geometry and data repository is critical to
our discussion of the building envelope. Whether this repository is a single entity
or a loosely federated set of containers all talking to each other, the effect and
result is the same. Each of the current 410 envelope applications (and many new
ones yet to be developed and deployed) output their data to this Envelope
Repository. We will call those applications the Building Envelope Data
Authoring Tools.
An additional set of applications and tools, some of which already exist, are
Building Envelope Data Analytical Tools, which operate on the data
repository, analyzing whether the envelope will withstand wind, rain, humidity,
solar gains and physical responses and deformations, as well as degradation
over the life of the building.
A critical by product of this repository is the ability to build on this repository when
a building envelope is damaged due to environment or other circumstances and
needs to be repaired. In addition, when an envelope needs to be modified due to
building expansions or modifications, the savings in not having to “reinvent the
wheel” and re-enter enormous amounts of data and geometry related to the
envelope before embarking on a new or modified design is immensely significant.
But we have been just talking about the authoring and analytics possibilities.
Consider the emerging technologies we mentioned previously in Section III. All have
enormous potential for insight and productivity gains, all again with the caveat that
observations and design/analytical adjustments to the building envelope are input to
and read from the integrated envelope repository.
BIM (Building Information Models and Modeling)
In the case of the Denver Art Museum, Derek Cunz of Mortenson Construction
stated that 250+ models were generated to realize the project. One single model
is not the norm for large projects or even smaller residential scale ones. So this
is all the more reason for a geometry and data repository that integrates these
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 55 | P a g e
models, so they become accessible to all project/building stakeholders and
remains a viable archive over the building lifecycle. For the purpose of this
course topic, we believe that all building envelope BIM geometry and data must
be integrated and form the core source inside this envelope repository.
Laser Scanning and Aerial Drones used for Photo-metrics
Laser scanning has already proven to be enormously useful and productive on
construction sites over the past 10 years. For the building envelop itself, where
components and details can be quite high up and otherwise inaccessible, combining the
benefits of laser scanning with un-manned aerial drones can be a game-changer. The
labor savings alone could pay for these systems, and the use extends not just to
construction and commissioning but also to post-construction follow-up.
Energy Analysis and Thermal and Moisture Detection
Part of the challenge for our Building Envelope Moon Shot relates to current physical
and software tools for energy analysis and thermal and moist detection that most
frequently have analog rather than digital outputs. As the following image illustrates,
these tools are meant to be read in the field by engineers or mechanics, separated from
the digital data of a BIM or other software tools. In order to make use of the data
gathered, information often must be input again from the analytical tool into another
package. If the tools generate reliable and interoperable data that can immediately be
input into the Envelope Data Repository, then anyone can access that analysis and
make use of it, either contemporaneously or over the project lifecycle.
Figure 11 Laser Scanning and Drones
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 56 | P a g e
Sensors and Internet of Things (IoT)
The potential for sensors to be applied or embedded in building envelopes is enormous
both for maintaining physical integrity as well as ongoing and real time envelope
performance monitoring. Solar gain, air infiltration, moisture intrusion, and changes in
any of the components due to wind and seismic forces are just a few of the areas that
could be monitored. Degradation of the envelope components over time is an additional
area of improvement. Again, though, this sensor data must be integrated with the
Envelope Digital Repository in order to be useful as an archive, as well as
collaboration among project/building stakeholders.
Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR)
It is important also to consider new virtual reality and augmented reality tools.
The ability to use a virtual reality headset to look at the virtual building envelope
model and walk through the envelope from outside to inside and envision the
responsiveness of the envelope to various conditions would be powerful. And
augmented reality would permit a designer or constructor to look at a building
envelope under construction or during commissioning and compare the installed
components to design itself. Construction inspections, commissioning
Figure 12 Typical Analog Process of Forensic Building Envelope
Failure Inspection
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 57 | P a g e
processes, and post-construction forensic analysis of building envelope failures
would be enormously improved by the synergy between VR and AR.
We began this section stating that an estimated 410+ software tools are already
developed for building energy analysis and envelope performance. And we also
mentioned how many of the new emerging innovative technologies will be generating
even more data. All of this further justifies the need for an integrated and interoperable
Building Envelope Geometry and Data Repository. So how do we achieve this
“nirvana” with the current fragmentation of the design and construction industry?
Organizational Challenges and Opportunities
The oft-cited challenge to improvement in productivity and innovation in the design and
construction industries is the small scale nature of the players and immense
fragmentation. Design Intelligence reports, for the year 2012, that there were 20,836
distinct establishments with 146,277 individuals involved in architectural firms. A google
search on 10/19/2016 provides the following statistics for construction:
Construction Industry Statistics Annual Revenue
US Construction industry annual revenue $1.731 Trillion
Number of construction companies in the US 729,345
Number of construction company employees in the US 7.316.240
Average construction company employee salary $45,200
Figure 13 Illustration of Virtual Reality during a design project
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 58 | P a g e
These two statistics for architectural firms and construction (and we haven’t included
engineering in these figures) are added to the number of industry organizations
specifically involved in the building envelope (see Appendix A). There are over 74 of
those organizations with all of their members, dues structures, publications and monthly
and annual meetings taking place.
But in spite of this immense fragmentation (and we have just cited the figures above for
the U.S. architecture, construction and building envelope organizations) there remains
hope and opportunity for an idea such as the “moon shot.” In fact, as you look at the
JFK admonition for going to the moon, Google’s initiatives, and even Vice-President
Biden’s Cancer Moonshot, the only way to align these diverse groups is by a big
audacious goal such as the building envelope moon shot.
The challenge of immense fragmentation is also the opportunity. The key to success,
however, is industry vision, roadmap and leadership. In fact, there are already
documents that provide roadmaps that could lead the way:
Building Envelope Technology Roadmap: A 20-Year Industry Plan for Building
Envelopes, by the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of the US
Department of Energy (DOE)
Windows and Building Envelope Research and Development: Roadmap for
Emerging Technologies, published by Building Technologies Office of DOE
Technology Roadmap Energy Efficient Building Envelopes, by the International
Energy Agency.
Figure 14 Three Building Envelope Technology Roadmaps by US Dept. of Energy
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 59 | P a g e
There is even duplication and fragmentation around the building envelope technology
roadmaps! This provides even further justification for an overarching “moonshot”
approach to bring everyone together in a single focused mission.
Cultural | Behavioral Challenges and Opportunities
One model of success to overcome fragmentation and industry inertia is an effort begun
over 12 years ago by the AIA Technology and Architectural Practice (TAP) Knowledge
Community. It was called The Building Connections Congress and had a mission to
provide The International Clearinghouse for Interoperability Standards and Activities in
the Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Real Estate industries.
There are examples of how the industry responds to fragmentation by having a vision
and leadership. This is one critical element in how the moon shot can be achieved.
Both the technological and industry organization fragmentation is indicative of the basic
human tendency to often “reinvent the wheel” rather than build on the failures and
successes of our predecessors.
The “Building Envelope Moon Shot” as an overarching vision and mandate can provide
a needed antidote to the fragmented culture and efforts in the industry.
And the idea of a “Building Congress” or something like a “united nations” convened for
the building industry could bring all of the industry technologists, professional
stakeholders, organizations and academic institutions together with a single focus and
purpose.
Figure 15 AIA TAP Building Connections Congress (2005) at AIA Headquarters, Washington DC
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 60 | P a g e
One key challenge is finding initial and recurring long term funding and a viable
business model for the “moon shot” initiative. From a behavioral and cultural standpoint,
the issue is WIIFM (What’s In It For Me)? The value proposition has to include time and
cost savings, increased quality, fewer errors and deficiencies, and overall improved
performance and outcome for a project and building.
The first step in the process is to utilize social media and industry events to engage all
stakeholders in joining the “moon shot” initiative and vision. This has already occurred
by presentations at CSI, AGC BIM Forum and AIA Conventions, all with large attendee
turn-out and positive feedback on the topic and presentations.
But for individuals, technologists, organizations, academic institutes and other
stakeholders to make a difference on the “moon shot”, one of the first steps is to “join”
the movement, invest time, energy and money in the activities and make a commitment
to the roadmap and end results.
Building the “building envelope moon shot” network is step one. And linking the network
to current industry activities such as conferences, and workshops is a second way to
building on an already existing industry foundation.
Developing a critical mass of engaged followers and participants is critical. One
example of using current technologies and processes is to “open source” the initiative.
Any and all participants can help focus the vision, build the strategic plan, and help write
the roadmap.
Section IV outlined how AISC took a leadership role in developing, deploying and
ultimately making CIS/2 a commercial and international success story. What industry
entity or group of organizations could take the leadership for the Building Envelope
Moon Shot? Certainly, the AIA could be a leader because architects are the ones who
envision the building envelope as architecture. The AGC represents the constructors
who build the envelope. Both NIBS and NIST have developed tremendous research
resources in support of the vision of the building envelope moon shot. CSI (the
Construction Specifications Institute) nominally represents the building product
manufacturers as a whole and they obviously have a huge stake in the “moon shot”
idea.
We now have envisioned a Moon Shot Steering Team comprised of at least the AIA,
AGC, CSI, NIBS, NIST and the US Department of Energy laboratories. A broader
Building Envelope Moon Shot Advisory Group of key leaders from other stakeholders
could provide support to the Steering Team. Both the Steering Team and Advisory
Group, with support of a key management execution team, can complete the vision,
roadmap, and a1, 3, 5 and 10 year Moon Shot Execution Plan.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 61 | P a g e
Vision and Roadmap
For
Better Practice and Building Envelope Outcomes
We illustrated above three separate “roadmaps” developed by the US Department of
Energy laboratories and those three can be the foundation for the Building Envelope
Moon Shot and bring into focus those three separate documents and initiatives. In fact,
the Moon Shot really doesn’t have to “re-invent the wheel” but just focus and coordinate
many activities and initiatives already under way. There are a couple of roadmaps
already developed by Industry Organizations that can provide a template for the
Building Envelope Moon Shot.
FIATECH, for example, has a roadmap to support their stated mission: “Fiatech is an
international community of passionate stakeholders working together to lead global
development and adoption of innovative practices and technologies to realize the
highest business value throughout the lifecycle of capital assets.” And their “Tech
Roadmap” is shown in diagram below and described in the following paragraph on
www.fiatech.org:
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 62 | P a g e
“Imagine a highly automated project and facility management environment
integrated across all phases of the facility life cycle. This is the vision of
Fiatech, its members, and its Roadmap initiative. The future environment
is one where information is available on demand, wherever and whenever
it is needed to all interested stakeholders. Such an integrated environment
could enable all project partners and project functions to interconnect—
instantly and securely—all operations and systems. This will drastically
reduce the time and cost of planning, design, and construction. Scenario-
based planning systems and modeling tools will enable rapid, accurate
evaluation of all options, resulting in the best balance of capability and
cost-effectiveness. New materials and methods will reduce the time and
cost of construction and greatly extend facility performance, functionality,
aesthetics, affordability, sustainability, and responsiveness to changing
business demands.”
CABA (Continental Automated Buildings Association) has also developed a roadmap
that could be a good template for our Building Envelope Moon Shot, described as: The
report, authored by Building Intelligence Group LLC, employs qualitative market
research including focus groups, interviews, and trend analysis to conclude that a series
Figure 16 FIATECH Roadmap Diagram
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 63 | P a g e
of barriers inhibit industry growth. The report recommends a complete strategy to
remove these barriers, and surveys the sentiments of industry stakeholders.
The Roadmap’s primary objective is to identify strategies for developing intelligent
buildings that have the greatest potential to drive broad acceptance. The report
examines the challenges facing intelligent building implementation within North America
and identifies the market developments and industry initiatives needed to support the
wider adoption of these technologies.
The key elements of the Building Envelope Moonshot Roadmap, with input from these
various roadmaps already developed, are:
Describe the Moon Shot Vision
Encompass the entire design and construction industry
Clearly articulate the stakeholder value proposition
Align already developed plans and roadmaps into a single focused and
achievable strategy
Using social media platforms, crowd source the roadmap and make it open and
ongoing and iterative.
VI. Conclusion and Path Forward
From JFK and the Moon to 21st Century and Global Warming
In conclusion, the key elements of this Building Envelope Moon Shot course began with
an introduction and overview of the enormous importance of the building envelope and
the opportunity, with technology, to dramatically improve the built environment.
Why the building envelope matters included highlights of how the envelope as a building
technology has been transformed over history as well as how architects and
constructors have evolved both the documentation and technologies of constructing
envelopes. The impact of envelopes on the environment and global climate change is
well known and significant. Sustainable design has the envelope as one of its core
focus areas. And, the state of practice has evolved from merely design and
constructing the envelope to a process of integrated project design and whole building
and integrated building envelope commissioning.
Emerging innovative technologies, we suggest, have both opportunities and challenges.
The new technologies we highlighted include BIM, laser scanning, drones, clash
detection and model checking, energy analysis and thermal and moisture detection,
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 64 | P a g e
sensors and the Internet of Things, and finally, virtual reality and augmented reality. In
all, one federal agency has counted over 410 applications that are highlighting these
technologies.
But the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) is the one agency that has
provided both a role model and actual metrics on how to integrate interoperability,
technology and transformational workflows into a whole new way of practice. We
explored why and how interoperability has been a force for good, and still a work in
progress. Other programs such as AIA, AGC, CSI, NIST and NIBS, of which all are
programs and initiatives, have not had the impact or “road to productivity” illustrated by
AISC.
Therefore, we have proposed a Building Envelope Moon Shot for the construction
industry. And we have illustrated the framework for a vision, roadmap and strategic plan
to accomplish that Moon Shot. For each of the technology, organizational and
cultural/behavior categories we discussed, both challenges and opportunities have been
presented and explored.
Not Just a Mandate but an Imperative
In the end, the enormous impact that building envelopes have on our built environment,
our economy, and our global climate challenges us to following the edict message of
Architect Daniel Burnham (quoted in: Charles Moore, Daniel H. Burnham, Architect,
Planner of Cities):
Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably
by themselves will not be realized.
Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble,
logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone
be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency.
Remember that our sons and our grandsons are going to do things that
would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 65 | P a g e
VII. Bibliography and Notes
Rush, R. (1986) The Building Systems Integration Handbook, Washington, DC, US: American
Institute of Architects.
Staub, J. (2006) “BSD-007: Historical Development of the Building Enclosure”; Building Science
Corporation, accessed at: https://buildingscience.com/documents/digests/bsd-007-historical-
development-of-the-building-enclosure
Arnold, C (2009) “Building Envelope Design Guide “, Whole Building Design Guide,
Washington, DC, US National Institute of Building Sciences.
Zhivov, A., Bailey, D, and Herron, D. (2012).Air Leakage Test Protocol for Building Envelopes.
Champaign, IL, US Army Corps of Engineers
National Science and Technology Council (2008) Federal Research and Development Agenda
for Net-Zero Energy, High-Performance Green Buildings, Washington, DC, US, Office of the
President
American Institute of Architects, (2008). First Roundtable on Sustainable Design, Washington
DC
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 66 | P a g e
VIII. INTERNET RESOURCES
www.AIA.org
The American Institute of Architects
www.usgbc.org
Website of the US Green Building Council
www.ashrae.org
American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE)
www.nas.edu
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
www.nibs.org
The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS)
www.nist.gov
The National Institute of Standards of Technology (NIST)
www.doe.gov/lbnl
U.S. laboratories including Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 67 | P a g e
IX. John F Kennedy’s Moonshot Speech to Joint Session of
Congress
Kennedy, John F. (1961).
John F Kennedy’s Moonshot Speech to Joint Session of Congress, accessed at:
http://www.space.com/11772-president-kennedy-historic-speech-moon-space.html
Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world
between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which
occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the
Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men
everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road
they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been
under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of
the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and
where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it
is time to take longer strides--time for a great new American enterprise--
time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement,
which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.
I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts
of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or
marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have
never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed
our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.
Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket
engines, which gives them many months of lead-time, and recognizing the
likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more
impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts
on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first,
we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We
take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown
by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when
we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now;
and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of
others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free
men must fully share.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 68 | P a g e
I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have
earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are
needed to meet the following national goals:
First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal,
before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him
safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more
impressive to man-kind, or more important for the long-range exploration
of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We
propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space
craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much
larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We
propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned
explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose
which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first
makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man
going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an
entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.
Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars
already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket.
This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting
and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to
the very end of the solar system itself.
Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present
leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide
communications.
Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million dollars is for
the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the earliest possible time a
satellite system for world-wide weather observation.
Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress
must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the
country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course
which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million
dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated 7 to 9 billion dollars additional over the
next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the
face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 69 | P a g e
Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that
under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the
Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully.
It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you
have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of
space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty
what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space.
I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country
as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter
carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over
many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no
sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative
position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear
the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today
and this year.
This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and
technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their
diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly
spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which
have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It
means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material
or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key
personnel.
New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could
in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer,
every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his
personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of
freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 70 | P a g e
Appendix A: Building Envelope Industry Associations
http://rci-online.org/news-and-advocacy/building-envelope-associations/
Acronym Association Web Address
AA Aluminum Association aluminum.org
AAMA American Architectural Manufacturers
Association aamanet.org
ABAA Air Barrier Association of America airbarrier.org
ACI American Concrete Institute concrete.org
AEE Association of Energy Engineers aeecenter.org
AIA American Institute of Architects aia.org
AISI American Iron & Steel Institute steel.org
ANSI American National Standards Institute ansi.org
APAI The Engineered Wood Association (formerly
American Plywood Assoc.) apawood.org
ARCA Alberta Roofing Contractors Association arcaonline.ca
ARMA Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association asphaltroofing.org
ASC Adhesive and Sealant Council ascouncil.org
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers asce.org
ASHI American Society of Home Inspectors ashi.org
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration,
and Air Conditioning Engineers ashrae.org
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 71 | P a g e
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers asme.org
ASNT American Society for Nondestructive Testing asnt.org
ASTM American Society for Testing & Materials astm.org
AWCI Association of the Wall and Ceiling Industry awci.org
BCBEC British Columbia Building Envelope Council bcbec.com
BIA Brick Institute of America bia.org
BOMA Building Owners & Managers Association boma.org
BURSI Better Understanding of Roofing Systems
Institute (Johns Manville) specjm.com
CDA Copper Development Association copper.org
CFFA Vinyl Roofs Division, Chemical Fabrics &
Film Association vinylroofs.org
CGSB Canadian General Standards Board pwgsc.gc.ca
CEFPI Council of Educational Facility Planners cefpi.org
CRCA Canadian Roofing Contractors Association roofingcanada.com
CRRC Cool Roof Rating Council coolroofs.org
CRSMCA Carolinas Roofing and Sheet Metal
Contractors Association crsmca.com
CS&SB Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau cedarbureau.org
CSA Canadian Standards Association csa.ca
CSI Construction Specifications Institute csinet.org
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 72 | P a g e
EIMA Exterior Insulation Manufacturers Association eima.com
EPSMA EPS Molders Association epsmolders.org
FM Factory Mutual Engineering and Research fmglobal.com
Greenroofs.com greenroofs.com
GA Gypsum Association gypsum.org
IAQA Indoor Air Quality Association iaqa.org
ICC International Code Council iccsafe.org
ICAA Insulation Contractors Association of
America insulate.org
ISANTA International Staple Nail and Tool
Association isanta.org
MBMA Metal Building Manufacturers Association mbma.com
MCA Metal Construction Association mca1.org
MRCA Midwest Roofing Contractors Association mrca.org
NAIMA North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association naima.org
NAMP National Association of Mold Professionals moldpro.com
NAWC National Assoc. of Waterproofing &
Structural Repair Contractors www.nawsrc.org
NBEC National Building Envelope Council (Canada) nbec.net
NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration
Boards ncarb.org
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 73 | P a g e
NERCA North/East Roofing Contractors Association nerca.org
NFPA National Fire Protection Association nfpa.org
NIST National Institute of Standards and
Technology nist.gov
NPCA National Paint & Coatings Association paint.org
NRC National Research Council of Canada nrc.ca
NRCA National Roofing Contractors Association nrca.net
NRDCA National Roof Deck Contractors Association nrdca.org
NREP National Registry of Environmental
Professionals nrep.org
NSA National Slate Association slateassociation.
org
OIRCA Ontario Industrial Roofing Contractors
Association
ontarioroofing.co
m
PDA Polyurea Development Association pda-online.org
PIMA Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers
Association pima.org
QBEC/CEBQ Quebec Building Envelope Council cebq.org
RCMA Roof Coating Manufacturers Association roofcoatings.org
RICOWI Roofing Industry Committee on Weather
Issues ricowi.com
RMA Rubber Manufacturers Association rma.org
RRCI Reflective Roof Coatings Institute reflectivecoating
s.org
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 74 | P a g e
SDI Steel Deck Institute sdi.org
SMACNA Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors
National Association/td> smacna.org
SPFA Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance sprayfoam.org
SPI Society of the Plastics Industry socplas.org
SPRI Sheet Membrane & Component Suppliers to
the Commercial Roofing Industry spri.org
SWRI Sealant, Waterproofing & Restoration
Institute swrionline.org
TRI Tile Roofing Institute tileroofing.org
UL Underwriters Laboratories ul.com
ULC Underwriters Laboratories of Canada ulc.ca
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council usgbc.org
UURWAW United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, &
Allied Workers
unionroofers.co
m
WSRCA Western States Roofing Contractors
Association wsrca.com
XPSA Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association xpsa.com
Copyright 2016 Stephen R Hagan FAIA Hagan Technologies LLC
All Rights Reserved 75 | P a g e
BIOGRAPHY
Stephen R Hagan FAIA CCM is recognized as an industry expert in technology innovation, real estate, and the construction marketplace.
In August 2012, Stephen retired from the federal government after 37 years and is now consulting about BIM, Innovation and Online Technologies. Steve is President, CEO of Hagan Technologies in Reston, VA. Stephen is currently a member of the AIA Documents Committee.
Stephen was program and project management lead for the U.S. General Services Administration PBS Project Information Portal (PIP) and a founding member of the GSA 3D / 4D Building Information Model (BIM) team.
In 2014, the AIA TAP Innovation awards program, which Steve founded (as TAP BIM Awards) in 2003, celebrated its 10th year and includes partnerships with COAA, IFMA, and the AGC BIM Forum. In 2015, this program celebrated 11 years as a leading example of innovation and technology foresight for the Institute.
In 2012-13, Hagan Technologies partnered with Onuma Inc. on development of a Strategic Plan and 5 Year Road Map for the Space and Equipment Planning System (SEPS) and the world-wide facility management system (DMLSS-FM) for the Department of Defense (DoD) and Veterans Administration (VA).
In 2014, Hagan Technologies continues to support Onuma Inc with a new FED iFM initiative for the DoD Defense Health-care Administration (DHA) that will broadly support the entire FM community in the public sector and can broaden to the entire Design, Construction, Facilities Management / Operations communities.
In 2015, Hagan Technologies branched out to include strategy and support for online, social media and collaborative technologies for the global travel industry.
In 2016, through engagement with Geo-Buiz, the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), and NIST’s Smart Cities program, Hagan Technologies now is focused on emerging and innovative technologies supporting Smart | Connected | Sustainable | Resilient Cities and Urban Eco-Districts.
In 2017, Hagan will convene and keynote a Full Day Pre-convention workshop entitled:
Game Changing Innovation--Designing the Future of Architecture, Construction
and The Built Environment at the 2017 AIA National Convention in Orlando on April
26, 2017.
Stephen R Hagan FAIA